With respect to AI, some people appear to have an objection to the idea of
feed[ing an] AI with other people's works and then claim[ing] all the output as yours.
Let's create the following hypothetical scenario.
An AI and a human art student are both presented with the exact same set of copyrighted pictures to study. After studying them both produce a new work of art (a picture) based on what they have learned. Both new works are different from any of the originals but have some similarities in style or techniques. Both new works are based on the same source material and are theretofore very similar.
Many people would call what the AI did copyright violation or insist that every work used to train it be cited.
But very few people would have an issue with what the art student did.
Whether it be a human or a machine, in both cases, Neural networks examined objects and then created output based on what was learned. From an ethical standpoint one would think that the form of the machine should make little difference (gears, vacuum tubes, transistors or chemical machinery of living cells).
Neural networks are heavily modeled on the way human brains work. So even if the form of the machine did matter, one would think that it should matter much less for neural network based Artificial Intelligence (as opposed to a traditional computer program).
So why try and legally disincentivize one but not the other?
Why do many people choose to make that distinction?
From an ethical standpoint shouldn't the two be
identical equivalent (or nearly so)?
I do acknowledge that some content creators may think they have a financial interest in limiting the use of AI. But aren't they just making an arbitrary moral distinction based on their own financial interest?
I acknowledge that an AI is not a human being. But as AI progresses towards the point of sentience, then at some point, what we are doing just becomes discrimination.